TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)

Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)
Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:48:05 UTC wrote:

> DSL, the transmissions contain so much more bytes. Some sites won't
> even allow old browsers to access them; they tell you to get a new one
> and even let you download it on the spot.

Yes, some software/web developers are idiots. I am always amazed
at how much bad code is written and gets sold.

> As an example, I tried to get on to the new CW TV network website (the
> one replacing WB and UPN). My PC didn't have the latest Flash so I
> couldn't get on. Why was that so important to them to require that?

This is just bad business sense. Why keep out potential customers
with artificial barriers such as this? I guarantee the web site geek
just got carried away with some "cool graphics" and if marketting
understood what this meant to real people trying to surf the site it
would not work that way.

> I submit the bells and whistles aren't necessary and a waste of
> machine CPU cycles and bandwidth. But businesses and even government
> agencies want super fancy screens and the industry wants to sell ever
> more powerful CPUs, routers, servers, etc.

Again, I think it's the technical folks who are behind much of this.
Sure, they make sure the boss has the latest browser and it works
great for *him*, but screw any actual customers who might not have the
latest and greatest. If the real business people understood that I
think things would change. And, some businesses do seem to get it,
and their web pages work on almost any browser. Really smart ones
have pages that work well with lynx. ;-)

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's easier than to
> transmit a virus because browsers today are sophisticated and execute
> programs sent over from web site ("java applets"?). Several times
> while merely surfing what should've been legitimate web sites -- not
> downloading or "running" anything -- the virus alarm kicked in because
> of an attempt to send over hostile code. Further, a subsequent run of
> spyware software (ad-aware) detected manipulations.

A lot of what ad-aware catches is cookies. While cookies are a
concern for privacy reasons they are mostly innoucuous and used to
keep state information from one visit to the next of a particular
website. Applets are more of a concern, and good web site design will
not require them.

> I'm angry at the Internet community for constantly demanding more and
> more power in browsers. Web developers can't wait to use the latest
> bells and whistles yet browsers of ten years ago (ie IE Vers 4) were
> more than adequate to display information from a website. Developers
> are so snobby about this they won't even allow users with old browsers
> to get on.

I tend to agree. Web designers like to try every new feature they
can, but forget their target audience in the process. It's easy to
get carried away and forget that not everyone has, or wants, the most
up-to-date browser. The ones that really bug me are the web sites
that say I need to have IE. That's beyond stupid. Even Microsoft
isn't that parochial.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: DLR: "Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
Go to Previous message: Gene S. Berkowitz: "Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
May be in reply to: "Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
Next in thread: DLR: "Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page